Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

According to which policy? Is this page not just for 'discussion' or 'Talk' as the title suggests? Mach Seventy 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a place to discuss the article. Not to discuss the topic. --Golbez 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sdedeo WP:TALK Guidelines (See WP:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). There it clearly states that 'Talk pages are not for general conversation', so keep it to a minimum, there must be 1000s of forums for general conversation relating to this topic, plus overtime if this happened to all articles, surely the servers would collapse. Oliver Davison 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Ungrammatic title

The entry title ought to be “September 11, 2001, attacks” if the date format is going to be Mmmm DD, YYYY. However, beyond making this note, I am not going to try to wrestle with anyone over this issue. —SlamDiego 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously discussed. This is the same style Wikipedia uses for 7 July 2005 London bombings etc. Peter Grey 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely false. “DD Mmmm YYYY” ≠ “Mmmm DD, YYYY”. In the latter case, the year is offset by a comma. A title “11 September 2001 attacks” would be grammatic, and “September 11, 2001, attacks” would be grammatic, but “September 11, 2001 attacks” is not. (Now, I need to work on my resolve to let this go.) —SlamDiego 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is "Ungrammatic" even a word? Travb (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Just let it go. The "issue" here basically boils down to a difference in the way Americans write (and, to some extent, "say") dates. A far more idiosyncratic "American" title would, in fact, be September 11th attack or 9/11 attack(s) or even 9/11 terrorist attack(s). For the record, "ungrammatic" is not, in fact, a word. "Grammatically incorrect", perhaps, yes..."antigrammatical", still, albeit "unused", is correct. "Ungrammatic" is, unequivocably, not a word. In light of that simple fact, this is probably a good place, if there were ever a good place to point this out, I think that perhaps a far more important focus for committed WP editors should be proper grammar within articles, rather than whether article titles reflect a single editor's particular ideas about the proper use of punctuation. Tomer^talk 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible to make this page perma-protected ?

Is it possible to "vote" on one version of this article and make it perma-protected? I know this is against everything that wikipedia stands for, but this article has been the center of argument for years, there is 26 pages of archived material (Granted, users on this talk page archive quite frequently). These years long arguements have had a ripple effect across wikipedia.

anyway, just a suggestion. Personally, I have never got involved in these really high-profile pages such as Iraq War and 9/11. It seems like a waste of time to be edit warring over one page indefinetly...Travb (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:STABLE. Never got very far. Thatcher131 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... thanks again Thatcher131. Travb (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Stub-Class. It's perma-protected (WP:STABLE?) stub and I'm not sure why would you ask for something we already have. This is rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. I'd suggest we stick that pov tag and turn this into the Start-Class article. Lovelight 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamikaze?

I believe I read somewhere that the terrorists were inspired by the Kamikaze attacks during World War 2, but I can't verify this anywhere.. Has anyone else ever read that?

Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that. However, I have heard that kamikaze attacks were essentially the "invention" of suicide bombing. I don't think it needs to be mentioned, though. PTO 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks were no longer a novelty in 2001. Peter Grey 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

This article covers the event very well, but I have put it on hold for now with a few suggestions on improving it further before passing it as a GA.

• All wikilinks should be checked for redirects, that should be really easy to fix.
• "According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." Rolling the plane should be clarified with a definition or wikilink for readers unfamiliar with the term.
• Add a comma to the number of fatalities in the World Trade Center (in the fatalities section) to keep it uniform with the other numbers.
• "Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds." This statement should be fixed up, this seems POV about stereotypes of hijackers/terrorists.
• "Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a Fatwa signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by many as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts." Are seen by many who?
• "In response to this speech ("Bush's claim that we hate freedom"), Bin Laden remarked in 2004, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."" Remove extra space between citation right after this statement.
• "Blood donations also saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11." Where did they surge at? Within New York City, around the country/world?
• Possibly expand the Civilian aircraft grounding section or move the statement to another section.
• Remove extra space for citation in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Potential health effects section and move the see also link to the end of the section.

Sources should be added to these statements:

• "Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77."
• "As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed."
• "Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, including one on Flight 175. Additionally, Marsh lost 38 consultants. Approximately 400 rescue workers, most of them of the FDNY, died when the towers collapsed."
• "According to the Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)."
• The damage section also needs sources, covert the link into an inline citation.
• "27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks, only 19 participated."
• "When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."
• "The winning design of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition was Reflecting Absence created by Michael Arad. It is expected to open in 2009."

This is a very well-written article that just needs a few modifications. Although some of my suggestions are very minor (I'm sure you'll enjoy fixing those ones), I'll wait to pass the article when the other ones are fixed. There are many sources available for these events and I'm sure it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find some for the statements above. So, for right now I'll put the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the changes I just made don't alter the above observations by increasing the flawcount for the article. Tomer^talk 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is US territory, there is no consensus, just enforcement.., no wonder people are steering away from it… and about this good article nomination, at this point in time? Lovelight 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...shocking... Elvis^lives 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What went wrong?

I'm sure this question has been raised before, and it's no doubt been lost in arguments over conspiracy theories, but isn't there a section missing on the security, intelligence and defence establishment failures related to 9/11? There are bit about it in the sub-article on responsibility, but it seems to me that this article so far has left out even the 9/11 Commission's slap on the wrist for the intelligence community. What sorts of barriers to introducing that sort of section do people here see? I.e., we need a section about "what went wrong" inside the US, which made 9/11 possible.--Thomas Basboll 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had a page on intelligence failures, but I can't find it now. We might begin by assembling somewhere a list of pages with material on the subject. There may be something already that is just not linked in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any barriers either, I think as Tom see's it, its just a matter of an editor creating a nciely written and sourced paragraph to introduce into this article. Sourcing being the most important issue I believe. Tom, since you replied first, do you have any particular issue against including material regarding the failures of the intelligence community in relation to 9/11? Any thoughts you would like to share or items you would like to see appear in it? --NuclearZer0 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree with the whole "intelligence failure" meme. I work in the defense industry, and while I certainly see a fair share of ineptitude, I think it's highly implausible that every facet of government intelligence "stood down" that day. I think that there was far too much money to be made (at least half a trillion US$) from 9/11 to simply believe that we "overlooked" the years of planning, "missed" the months and weeks of preparation, or "failed" to prevent the acts of a group that had been under either our control or watchful eye for almost 20 years. I'm not even mentioning the fact that our trillion-dollar "defense" system also failed from end to end as well. I'm fairly busy right now, but I think a well-sourced article on this subject will be good for this article--not just for this area, but also for the "conspiracy" area, which has been decimated by the apparently overwhelming zeal to lump the "thermite demolition" and "Pentagon cruise missile" crowd in with the "why did Bush delay the creation of and then refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" worriers.99th Percentile 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We might already have a page that is just not well-linked to other articles. I would say the way to begin is to put together an inventory of articles that include information on the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I am currently rewriting and source a section for another article, but will jump on creating a section on this article right afterwards. Do not think we need to make such an inventory however, you already searched and were unable to find anything, I am sure as an admin you have more tools to locate pages at your disposal then I do. So I will see if I can write something up and source it accordingly then plop it in. Considering the subject does anyone have a reccomendation where I should put it when done, or Thomas if he writes it up? --NuclearZer0 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no special admin search tool. The way to begin is to find out what we have already. Once we have an ennumeration of internal links that talk about the idea, we will better know what we need to summarize and link to from here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I think you were mistaken, I didnt say there was a special admin search tool, I just stated you would be able to search things I could not, like deleted articles etc. I tried some basic searches much like you above and came up blank. As I stated, I will start on something, if you find an article let me know and I can incorporate its ideas and sources. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. My idea now is to add a section about "vulnerabilities". I want to give the reader a sense of how difficult it must have been to carry out the attacks and/or how lucky the terrorists were. Basically: (1) they did not get caught in the planning/training stages (though Able Danger seems almost to have caught them), (2) they got past airport security (not too suprising given the very little weaponry to make them suspicious), (3) they successfully hijacked four planes (and there is no solid evidence of any unsuccessful cells), (4) their planes were not intercepted (due either to following standard operating procedures, failure to follow them, or distractions by war games), (5) they managed to hit three of their targets, and (6) the worst possible thing, namely, total collapse, happened to two of them (with the no doubt completely unexpected bonus of building 7 thrown in). So there were intelligence failures, security failures, air traffic control failures, air defence failures, and even engineering (or at least building) failures that all seemed to max out on 9/11. This is important because much of the post-9/11 reaction of course had to do with tightening these areas up (everything from improved airport security to new building codes). If anyone has a good idea for a heading, I'm all ears.--Thomas Basboll 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just keeping to the vulnerabilities would keep things simply I believe, adding in engineering failures, if any were present, would require moving and shifting within the article. However a section on vulnerabilities seems important as you stated, much went into fixing these failures, the Patriot Act, new airport security regulations, the orange green blue security codes, not sure about fixes from air traffic controller standpoint however. If you need any help at all let me know. I have written and sourced a few smaller articles and would be glad to help in any way I can. Luckily there has been so many WP:RS sources on the topic that it will not be hard to create an entirely verifiable section. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. The lack of proper dealing with those failures, like at least acknowledging them officially, is another reason for the emergence of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having those vulnerabilities described in this article would definitely take out some tension from it. This is just a side argument to the obvious one, that most factors that had led to the attacks should be described here. SalvNaut 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

It appears that there have been no changes to the suggestions listed above so at this time I am going to fail the article. The article is very well written and covers it in detail, however, it does need more sources to pass. Please fix the above suggestions before nominating again. --Nehrams2020 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers

This needs a definite source. To my knowledge it is merely a popular myth/presumption. While there have been reports (from family members talking on cell phones) and ambiguous indications from the black box recording, there is yet to be any definitive proof that the passengers on this flight attempted a takeover of the plane, or to what extent such an attempt had on the ultimate fate of the plane. The speed with which this myth propagated is what makes it problematic -- it served to instill patriotism and courage in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when details were still extremely sketchy, and people simply accepted it as fact. Even assuming this was what happened, important questions like "did the passengers onboard approve of this course of action, or was it instigated primarily by a handful of glory-seekers?" have never been asked in the popular press. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs. For now, I'm going to remove this line from the article, though if anyone feels strongly enough to add it back (and I suspect at least one person will be) then I'll leave it alone and you can continue the discussion here. Cyaugin 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs." Yet you already characterize it as a 'myth' so you seem to have a pretty good idea what happened. --Golbez 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks

ok, I believe that this external link should go in, please read through it (carefully) and address your concerns. You see, while I'm well aware that we have the other article I'd weigh that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong. I'd also say that the failure of 911 Commission should be pointed (and not directed) out (of) here. Share your thoughts, if you will… Lovelight 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong The link is entirely about conspiracy theories - they don't "naturally belong" in the article with "conspiracy theories" in the title? Anyway, the whole point about conspiracy theories is that they go beyond and/or contradict historical fact, so "key events" are not important even to the conspiracy theorists. Peter Grey 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Core vs. peripheral events

Most of this article is about the effects of 9/11, not the events themselves. That problem should perhaps be fixed by establishing some more subarticles, or moving more material into the existing ones. In any case, as far as I can tell, based in part on the anniversary coverage last year, one of the important consequences of 9/11 has been to bring together a number of projects at the far left and far right of the political spectrum and, it seems, to strengthen these projects immensely. To not notice the effects of 9/11 on the internal resistance to the US government (i.e., American dissidence) is a bit myopic. Many on the more established left (and to a lesser extent right) are deeply concerned about what 9/11 has done to the prospect of long-term social change, i.e., its effect on the overall concentration of power. They have also noted "conspiracy theories" as one of the problems that it has led to, since these theories (they argue) hold out too little hope for the mainstream political process. As Time magazine put, "this is mainstream political phenomenon." That, in itself is a remarkable effect of 9/11: it has caused (as some have argued) a rebirth of the "paranoid style". Now, paranoia is of course no guarantee that they're not after you. But it doesn't really matter what the "reality" about 9/11 is. Conspiracy theories are part of political reality. Or so, in any case, is how the argument for giving them more space here should go. (No political project has ever depended on being right, or even realistically possible, in order to be considered notable.)--Thomas Basboll 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating topics, but as pointed out, the article is already insufficiently focused on the actual attacks. Very little, if any, of the political reality is solely in consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. & Peter your dismissal is predictably vague - as always… Perhaps all of the regulars, to name a few… Aude, Peter, PTR, Mongo, Morton, Tom Harrison… should take a leave from this article; they have imposed their opinions long enough. Let's find another set of editors to work on this. How about that? Lovelight 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea that "political reality" is an oxymoron! You're right that the first order of business might be to refocus the article on "what happened", without interpretation. Of course, the moment "what happened" comes to include "islamic extremists" the can of worm opens. "Islamic extremists" are only as "real" as "political reality". Even "terrorism" is a politically loaded term. So I don't think we can keep the article clear of politics. Once introduced, there must be balance.--Thomas Basboll 18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I found your comment here kind of striking. It seems to suggest you plan to add material trying to legitimize conspiracy theories to articles like this one. I would not support that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And I find your remarkably striking. Legitimize the conspiracy theories? What is that Tom? Does that mean that they are illegal to begin with? Lovelight 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not illegal, just stupid. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom you shouldn’t call people stupid, not on the open ground anyway… & I thought it's Morton's job to ridicule, a bit disappointed with your hasty edits Tom, as with Aude's, you should exclude yourselves from all this, honestly. Lovelight 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The people aren't stupid, just the theories. Neither are you stupid; you pretend to misunderstand so you can pretend to take offense and complain of my behavior. That's a waste of everyone's time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying anything, you decided to show your own bias… & I'm ok with such behavior… however, imo folks who have memorial boxes on their pages about 911 events, folks who were there that very day might be emotional about all this, which is a state where you cannot keep a cool head & you cannot be objective about things, right? As for your edits, again, it's a bit like that Regebro fellow, who stated that he has no issues with conspiracy theories, while writing how the people who are pondering upon em are nothing but "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase(s)"… but, never mind, I do agree, this is a waste of time… Lovelight 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not our fault that you are uneducated. The hope is that this article, by only giving due weight to nonsense (ie, minimal coverage), that we can try and provide folks like yourself with an education. I wonder where you are from...it seems the loudest voices on this page that are attempting to continue to increase the coverage of conspiracy theories happen to not be from the U.S. When persons come here and continue to POV push things that they can't prove, it becomes disruption...don't be disruptive.--MONGO 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Mars, and you are way out of line… Lovelight 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I plan to add verifiable, informative and relevant materials to this article regardless of whether it strengthens or weakens the case for any particular theory of what happened on 9/11. I don't think the question of whether any particular fact "legitimizes" any particular theory should be used to assess its value for the article. The question is only whether or not it improves the reader's understanding of the events. The comment Tom refers to was about perfectly good facts that, so far, can only be learned (on Wikipedia) by reading articles about "conspiracy theories".--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As you mention at the top of this...Far left and far right...in other words, if you don't like George Bush or the more recent political decisions made by the current administration or have an anti-American bias, then you're more likely to believe the conspiracy theories. Thanks.--MONGO 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if you are American patriot willing to blindly go over lie after lie after lie… hmm… then you have some serious problem:). Anyway, I'd hope we are all mature enough, enough to work with facts and leave our allegiances (and biases) at home… or in the pub… Lovelight 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If your bias is keeping you from being able to understand facts and work collectively to create a fact based encyclopedia, then your purpose here must be one of disruption. Sometimes I wonder when intelligent persons like yourself edit here knowingly adding what has no basis in fact...it has all the appearance of disruption, not the fundamental priciple of Wikipedia which is a collaborative effort to build a fact based encyclopedia.--MONGO 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you doing that? We know each other for some time now; remember how u resisted that contribution to the War on terror section? If someone has issues with facts, if someone is inviting politics into all this, if someone is disrupting… it certainly isn't me. Lovelight 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That sort of depends on the conspiracy theory. If it's the "Bush did it" theory then, yes, I guess you'd in a trivial sense find it easier to swallow if you didn't like Bush. (Some, however, stopped liking him only after they became CTists.) But the anti-American label doesn't stick here very often, I think. As far as I can tell, the CTs are doing very well in the hands of "true Patriots" and the perpetrators are often referred to as "traitors". Many people who believe 9/11 CTs think there is "something terribly wrong with the country they love", etc.--Thomas Basboll 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the facts are that Democrats are more likely to believe the CT issues. Sheen, Asner, and all the other persons who are known that have spoken that the CT stuff is true are all well known liberals.--MONGO 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this, MONGO. Conservatives for 9/11 Truth Education is a good thing, no? - FAAFA 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "more likely"...simple English 101.--MONGO 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether there is a distinct left or right bias in the conspiracy community is, I take it, an empirical one. Mongo, you might want to offer a source for you claim of "more likely" so that the effects of 9/11 can be located as precisely as possible on the political spectrum. My sense is that CTs live mostly to the left and right of center. I don't have any reason to think either direction is stronger. If you have a source that says "30-25-20-25" (green, democrat, republican, libertarian) or something then your "most likely" is true, but a bit trivial. Simple Statistics 101.--Thomas Basboll 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of liberals like David Corn, Christopher Hitchens, and recently George Monbiot have condemned these conspiracy theories. Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone wrote that ""I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes." [1] Conspiracism was for a long time the province of the far right. Now some on the left, afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome maybe, have fallen into the same epistemic swamp. Something similar could be said about the new antisemitism. The responsible adults on the left know how this stuff plays with most people, and are keen to distance themselves from it. Liberals per se are no more prone to conspiracism than conservatives, but it should not be a huge surprise that opponents of President Bush are more likely to cast him as the villan in their conspiracy theories. Or maybe that's just what they want me to think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read of the various polls, people who are more likely to believe conspiracy theories are:

1. People who use the Internet as the main source of their news, especially "alternative" news sources and not mainstream news sources.
2. Young adults
3. People with lesser amounts of education (e.g. only high school)

That's not to stereotype those demographic groups. It's likely that large portions or majorities of these groups do not buy into the conspiracy theories. Regardless, I think this main article is long enough, and such details like this need to in the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing is a bad thing. On the same side of the fence there are people with uncommonly high IQ taking for example David L. Griscom. --SalvNaut 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll

In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally:

Text of survey question: "81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

(And that's not even getting into the sampling bias.) Peter Grey 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Excess details about conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article. That said, the poll found that 53% believe members of the Bush Administration are mostly telling the truth but hiding something. That does not jive with "84% of US citizens are questioning mainstream account of the attacks." --Aude (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a ref -- Lovelight 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which excess details Aude? There aren’t any… Lovelight 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

In other words, he didn't know that the attacks were coming, unless of course someone has trouble understanding plain English.--MONGO 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Haven't noticed this one, Mongo, stay on topic… we are talking about the public poll where 81% of people don't believe one word of that sentence. Lovelight 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched for "84" in the source and did not find it relating to 9/11. Bush's approval rating was 84% the week of 9/11 was the only hit of 84 related to 9/11. This is too primary of a source anyway. A notable statistician would need to make the claim, not someone synthesizing a value from raw poll numbers. --Tbeatty 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

84? Its 81... do search again… Lovelight 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

R u searching? These things are not so hard to find… Lovelight 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the edit I reverted [2]. It claimed 84%. I would expect that number to be in the source that was used to make the claim "84%". Since it wasn't in the source, it must have been completely made up. Tbeatty 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated bellow, my apologies, I was mislead myself. Lovelight 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

People's opinions on a poll are no more notable than the poll itself...and that is all we can go on. Nothing about a poll either proves or disproves the facts of the case.--MONGO 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure why you've pointed that out, since this is about recognition of public opinion, not about acknowledgment of the facts. It's a bit like control demolition hypothesis, it doesn’t serve as a proof, it serves as hypothesis… Lovelight 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely for the reasons I did. Who cares that there is a poll? The poll does nothing except state an opinion. I haven't seen a poll recently about the number of folks who believe in UFO's...but I bet the number is high, yet there is zero proof that UFO's exist.--MONGO 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the poll? Everybody, ask your governments, they breathe and act by public opinions, or at least they should… Well Mongo, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you cannot dismiss opinions of millions because you don’t care… Lovelight 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Lovelight, the opinion is noted but inadmissable since it doesn't do anything to enhance this article. Precisely, most people believe in UFO's, yet there isn't any proof of them. Thanks.--MONGO 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, quit with the UFO's, its boring tactic to say the least. Stay on the topic, if you can, to parry on this I'll simply add that there is not a single proof that this… this "official" take on events is true. Not a single one Mongo. That's the main reason that we have these lengthy games (& disputes too). Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The poll question, in fact, offers very little supporting any particular conclusion. The results simply say 81% of respondents (not the population at large) believe that someone close to Little George has not admitted to how much they knew before the attacks, for any reason. I can't imagine what the other 19% were thinking, this is documented fact in the case of Condoleeza Rice. Peter Grey 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already gave you a reference, the question is clear: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. I read the statement that 81% are “questioning mainstream account of the attacks” and was very surprised that the figure was that high. But when I went to the cited source and read all the 9/11 related questions, I saw nothing that was related to the statement – the closest question being that most think (myself included) that the Bush admin. was/is “hiding something.” I would hope that they don’t tell up 100% of everything they know… if for no other reason than security, but that does not make this group doubt the mainstream account of what happened; it's a stretch and jump to get to the sentence in the article. The 81% statement is bogus and should be either left out of the article or reworded to reflect what the poll question really says.Leon7 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that it was extremely poor wording, I did carry it from another article and that was a mistake. Nevertheless you've seen the other polls and the numbers are equally surprising everywhere, I'd say it's notable enough to be recognized in the article. Lovelight 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, since I've never seen you here, I'd deeply appreciate if you choose to do it. Lovelight 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Well? I don't know that it is notable. As I stated, it's no surprise that our government official know stuff that they don't want to pass on; that's the nature of the jobs that they hold. In fact, it is naive to think that they should tell us everything. However, having said that, there has to be a fine line as to what the public should demand to know. I would guess that your 81% statement on the number that doubt the mainstream account of what happened is closer to 20%. Leon7 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have those references above and it's obvious that the #'s are much, much higher, but those won't meat WP:RS… hmm, that will leave us with zogby polls and similes. Think it's about third of population, but I haven’t checked that in a while… Lovelight 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Or half? It would make sense, since we live in this unhealthy dichotomy… Lovelight 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So, are we going to recognize the public opinions or not? Peter? Aude? Tbeatty? Anyone... Lovelight 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you are ready… Lovelight 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support it if you'd be willing to use the 3 terms used in the source instead of polarizing the results in your favor. --Wildnox(talk) 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, be kind and assume good faith, here, have my third apology, along with further explanation and clear disclaimer… I don't have a need to state anything but the facts. The fact is… I've implement those edits hastily and without decent check of the source. I'm aware how it may look, and I was so disturbed by my own action that I've choose to block myself willingly for 48 hours, so that I would learn the lesson. Anyway, thank you for your understanding as well as for recognition of the informative nature of such addition. Lovelight 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Section

The September 3rd, 2006 edition of Time Magazine, a major news publication in the United States, reported that "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves."

Owing to this high number, what justification do this page's contributors have for limiting the Conspiracy Theories section to one small paragraph? Mach Seventy 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I thought we had a sizable article on conspiracy theories. --Golbez 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification, I'll look this up and implement it in the article, you could do it too… Lovelight 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to doing it, but I don't think what I'd write would make everyone happy. And Golbez, yes we have a conspiracy theories page- but the lead in on the main page ought to be proportionate to the importance of the sub-page - whether you like it or not, the conspiracy theories are always going to play a big role in everything surrounding 9/11 Mach Seventy 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna happen.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it will, yes it will… if it doesn’t happen 911 will happen again & no one would like that, right? Anyway, its good to see some fresh opinions here… yes it is. Lovelight 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support adding this.(either this or the one above if Lovelight is willing to use the source's actual language and distinctions) The conspiracy section is small, it doesn't need to be huge or anything, but a mention of some public opinion would be helpful in my opinion. --Wildnox(talk) 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We have two articles: (1) this one, for the facts; and (2) the other one, for all of the "theories". That arrangement has wide consensus. Any attempt to change that will be met with stiff opposition.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I fully support keeping the theories and all that stuff in that other article(s). I just happen to think that mentioning one of the two aforementioned public opinion polls could be informative. --Wildnox(talk) 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to discuss the polls on the conspiracy theories subarticle. The scripps poll seems to be most on point and specific about conspiracy theories. For comparison purposes and perspective, they also ask respondents about other things like if the federal government is withholding evidence of extraterrestrial life. The Scripps poll also gives a breakdown of which demographic groups (e.g. young adults, lesser educated, etc.) who are more likely to agree with conspiracy theories. All this details are suitable for the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you painting pictures Aude? People draw their own details… as for writing, anyone can do it… Lovelight 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The general population are not experts. The Zogby poll found that 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building -- 7 World Trade Center collapsed. I don't think so much weight needs to be given to these polls. Discussing the details in the subarticle is sufficient. --Aude (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of expertise it is a matter of opinion. It's informative, as well as notable. Not to say that it's ultra-minor addition. Lovelight 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

...and about WTC7, don't you think it's time to "educate" the public? Lovelight 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New to this discussion. There's already a conspiracy theory article. Polls like this can be parked, there. Abe Froman 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why we have to continuously revisit this issue, take a look at this citation which Lovelight graciously posted here earlier: This page, where it provides instructions on how to insert 9/11 CT propaganda into Wikipedia articles.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This reference, which Morton threw in just so that the muddy waters would be muddier, was taken from my talkpage… I'd encourage anyone who has any doubts to look at the original context. Lovelight 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreknowledge (take #247)

Yes Morton I agree, this one is about the facts and facts say that certain amount of people are skeptical of official take on events. I'm not sure why would facts be met with such stiff opposition, but I do understand your efforts and your POV. Well since we're examining the facts, how about a fine factual section on that foreknowledge? Regardless of perspectives recent BBC's documentary (my condolences to fine journalism, but have courage, after all, the minority is to blame…) did illustrate that there was a sheer failure to act. This failure should be recognized not only here, but on all related pages… such as of Dr. Rice's, signor Rumsfeld's, Monsieur Cheney's und der Herr Bush's of course… How about such facts? Those have nothing to do with conspiracy. Since yesterday, I'd also say that building 7 deserves a bit more room. It's been neglected for a while, and at least we'll have something to do while we wait for final report. No conspiracy there, just recognition of a very peculiar fall. I'm sure they'll explain it, eventually… Lovelight 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Background section (draft)

While the September 11 attacks were in the first instance an act of external aggression on US targets, their deeper motivation and remarkable success cannot be attributed to the acts and intentions of the hijackers alone. The events of that day must be understood on the background of a series of systemic failures of both a social and technical nature, which include the military establishment, the intelligence community[3], the law-enforcement community, and the civil aviation industry.

US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target.

The events of September 11, 2001 revealed that the United States was much more vulnerable to terrorism than had been imagined. Despite awareness of the threat, terrorist cells that would eventually carry out the attacks were able to live and even train for their mission in the US, without being thwarted by intelligence or law-enforcement agencies. The background for this failure seems to have been poor communication between agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA.

Airport security and air defence in the US also seemed ill prepared to prevent the events of that day. Four hijackings we able to occur and proceed unhindered toward their targets. In both cases, authorities had apparently expected a different sort of enemy. Hijackers were expected to take hostages and make demands, not use the airplanes to inflict immediate damage; enemies from the air were expected to come from outside US airspace.

Finally, three of the biggest skyscrapers in the world proved to be unable to survive the attacks, even though the possibility of aircraft collisions had been considered in their design, as had the need to survive hurricanes and earthquakes.

Comments on draft

The above section has been reverted twice now by Aude. First he said it was "not ready"; then he said: "unreferenced, editorial (not encyclopedic) tone, no consensus". Okay. Have at it. What parts are written in an editorializing tone? Can they not be fixed by replacing a few words? The account presented here can be sourced 90% (I'm guessing) to the official 9/11 commission report, and the rest can be found in some of the mainstream, booklength treatments of the events. It's common knowledge, relevant, well written (if I may so), and completely encyclopedic. Moreover, it establishes a frame of failures on that day that guides a reading of the rest of the article.--Thomas Basboll 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely written, but it's entirely opinion, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's the opinion of every expert that's looked at this topic. Is it my opinion that US foreign policy is not well received in the middle east? Is it my opinion that this has been a motive for terrorism against the US?--Thomas Basboll 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a section on the background of the attacks. An article on 9/11 that doesn't do anything (and this article doesn't do anything) to answer the question How could this have happened? is not good enough. This article needs to help the reader put 9/11 in perspective.--Thomas Basboll 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "attacks" section needs to be first, as it is now, and then go into discussion of motives, responsibility, and why the attacks happened. Such background should discuss Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. We already have a section on motives, which discusses their view of U.S. foreign policy, as well as responsibility. There is also an article on airport security which can be improved, and maybe something can be added to the 9/11 Commission Report section. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You may view logs for the deleted page to find out who deleted it and why. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole article over at Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good place to work from. There is also an article on planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I have tried separating the motives section from "responsibility" and added links to both the background history and planning articles. I think a one paragraph summary of those could fit under the "Background history" heading. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Following on my last edit, I moved things back closer to where they where with "responsibility" and "motives" under the same heading, while still linking to the "background history" and "planning" articles. This seems to be a more logical way to organize the article. --Aude (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read through Thomas's draft repeatedly and have no issues with it, this article is very small in size as it is (especially so with regards to the gravity of the events), so these constant redirections are not good way to go. Properly referenced and cited with some minor rewording draft would certainly (and notably) improve the article. That said, Aude has repeatedly shared this puzzling (not ready) explanation? Since I've seen it (experienced it) before, think we are all entitled to some decent answers. Aude who decides when are we ready, and what exactly are we waiting for? Finally, I'm certain that fair amount of people are watching developments here, so let me remind you folks, this is not a Big Brother, chip in, have your say. Lovelight 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Basbolls draft above is horribly POV and completely unacceptable. The U.S. and many western nations have faced terrorism since 1950's Algeria. The U.S. has been ungoing attacks off and on for almost as long as that, escalating in 1983 and again in the 90's, and the attacks have become more widespread. The draft Basboll proposes is way off focus for this article, which needs to concentrate on the events of one day, with only minor mentions of planning and after effects, which are already covered in other articles as mentioned in the dialogue above.--MONGO 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how these details are at odds with the statement I propose: "US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target." My way of putting has the virtue of being centred on the topic of the article, but otherwise I think we're saying the same thing here.--Thomas Basboll 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever to discuss the U.S. policies in the Middle East in this article. This article is about what happened on 9/11 and much of the rest of the issues of why, who, and whatnot deserve a breif mention and a link to other articles that already examine these issues you just mentioned. If they aren't adequately addressed in those articles, then create one. Lets stay focused on the day.--MONGO 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on draft (continued)

I can see this is going to be a long process. As I understand it, the standardly accepted account includes an understanding of how US authorities failed to prevent the attacks (failed in the sense that the buildings also "failed", i.e., not necessarily with any suggestion that they should have behaved differently--though that question must of course be noted). Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for; it is in the Encyclpaedia Britannica article on Pearl Harbor:

"The extent of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the U.S. military provoked considerable criticism. Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, the Navy and Army commanders on Oahu, were relieved of duty, and official investigations were begun at once. Some historians and others went so far as to accuse President Roosevelt of having invited the attack (or at least done nothing to stop it) in order to bring the United States into the war against the Axis." (Enc. Britannica)

Reading this article about 9/11, however, one gets no sense that anything "went wrong" on 9/11 other than whatever went wrong in the minds of the terrorists. (As if the decisive factor was the motive.) This article therefore does not really help the reader to understand a very important historical event, i.e., it does not present a even a cursory overview of the factors that contributed to the catastrophic consequences of the hijackers' actions. It simply summarizes the actions and the consequences. It doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the event. It occurs to me that Wikipedia is here running into one of its intrinsic limits. Perhaps an event like 9/11 simply can't be understood by collective effort. But let's work on it for few weeks and see what we can come up with.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The fault of the attacks is with the terrorists. What you're suggesting indicates you want to split the blame. I think I have stated repeatedly that the U.S. knew for some time prior to the 9/11 attacks that there were targets in the U.S....they did try and blow up one tower in 1993 afterall, but nothing that came to happen on 9/11 was sufficiently known by intel to be able to prevent it from happening. Besides, I think you must still miss the point...this article is about the events of one day and what you seem to want to expand on is very peripheral to that specific focus.--MONGO 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article (as it stands) is also about the consequences of those events. Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed. But (like I just suggested above) that would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor. A nation's defences are entrusted with defending a nation (truism but true). Such defences can therefore fail. When they do, historical events occur. Accounts of those events should include the failure of defence systems to prevent them. The alternative is ignorance, which isn't really one of the goals of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed"...who else is to blame? Again, you are getting off focus of where the article should be focusing on...the events of 9/11. "That would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor? I see...so their rape of Nanking and our efforts to demonstrate to them that we disapproved of their invasions and genocide by trying to isolate the Japanese economically makes the U.S. responsible for them attacking Pearl Harbor? If you want to expand on where the u.S. intel failed, then I suggest one of the other articles linked above.--MONGO 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here they are again...Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.--MONGO 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we need to expand this article so it would make sense, we need this background as we need to mention those war games, explain the failure of commission and so on… in other words we'll need to make it more encyclopedic… lots of work. Lovelight 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

None of that belongs in this article...there are other articles that these issues are already examined in.--MONGO 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Mongo, all this can be done with just a few sentences, people can then examine further… with interest. And please, do unlock this page, these monologues are a bit boring… Lovelight 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "The Rape of Nanking". I'm not going to discuss who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in world history, Mongo. That won't get us anywhere. The point is that if any country is successfully attacked by a well known enemy (as in the cases of Pearl Harbor and 9/11) then leaders of the nation's defences will be held in part accountable by the people or their representatives (as happened in the case of Pearl Harbor) or at least by historians (as has happened in the case of 9/11). Not for the attack, of course, but for its relative success. The US was surprisingly vulnerable in all sorts of ways to this particular sort of action. This article gives us little sense of how difficult and/or easy it was for the hijackers to pull it off. Yes, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to spread the blame for the damage the attacks caused around a little. In so doing I'm following a pretty mainstream approach to history. This was a complex event.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a middleground to be reached partially, and then possibly expanded later. While MONGO does not own the article and therefore cannot tell anyone what its scope is, for now we can possibly work in that scope. The war games that took place on 9/11 are events that took place on that day, failures of the control towers to respond properly as well as the military to respond fast enough are also items that can be included and examined in a section, as they happened on that day. Later other options can be looked at such as a RfC or Arbcom hearing regarding expanding the article to cover everything about 9/11 instead of just the day. So what do people think about limiting the section proposed to just failures that happened in that day, flight controllers, military readiness/wargames, local authorities radio systems etc. Part of me finds it odd that anyone can say blame should not be spread around since people have been fired since and an entire institution which MONGO has claimed to work for, USDHS, was created. Apparently even the administration feels something was lacking. --NuclearZer0 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The "draft" is vague and one-sided, and would only serve to dilute the focus of this article. Still, there probably is a case for mentioning the role of complacency and/or negligence, but the undue weight rule should limit that to a quick summary of a specialized sub-article. Peter Grey 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean about one-sided (though I would argue that it is simply pulling in the article back towards a more balanced view). Perhaps a paragraph about the background conditions that fostered these especially effective terrorists would help here. The only problem with that is that their operation seems suprisingly crude. Their flight training was elementary (just enough to get the job done, it would seem) and they overpowered the flight crew by sheer force and using simple weapons. While this may sound polemical, I think I'm arguing that as the article stands it gives undue weight to the actions of the terrorists, which were almost magically successful when we consider the results. Once the background of complacency and negligence, as you put it, along with some larger systemic problems (especially in the area of inter-agency cooperation), and perhaps the wargames at the time (exacerbating the "fog of war"), are taken into account, however, the effectiveness of the attacks begin to be comprehensible. It should be the task of the article to help the reader understand the attacks.--Thomas Basboll 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is going to be a challenge to inject "the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong," and it is something I do not support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking that a bit out of context. In this context it just means making use of whatever close readings of the official record there are and to make use of the information that this yields in an appropriate manner.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for an investigative journalist, with an independent editor providing oversight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone like Erich von Däniken would be interested in such matters.--MONGO 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The keys of the succes of the terrorists were two :

-In USA there was not any control in the airports and you can go into the plane with everything you want. In the rest of the world since the 1970s the control was much exhaustive.

-The procedure in case of hijaking that was given to the pilots by the air companies was to not resist and to follow the instructions of the hijakers to protect the plane and the passengers.

Apart from that, the fact that these planes were so easy to pilot helped a lot.

The governement ignored some warnings that seen from now look clear but in the middle of all the inteligence noise were not so easy to see. Even if the governement agencies would have ringed the alarm, it is very doubtful that the air companies would had allowed the kind of control in the airports that was necesary to stop the terrorists. In Europe was the same in the 1970s : until some planes were destroyed in Beirut in a famous hijaking, the aiports do not spent the money for security.

It was a very easy operation once you have the suicidal guys prepared. The enormity of the results must not mislead about how operationally easy was. The mistake was to not force the security in aiports in the 1970s when all the countries in the world did after 1973 wave of hijakings by PLO. To say that "the terrorist were able to live in USA" is absurd since the majority were innocent before 9/11 and they live as such.

The draft goes too far away IMO about how many things should have been done since only doing what all the airports in the world were doing would have been enough. The fact that many people supports Al-Qaeda around the world does not helped the attacks since the same 20 guys alone would have been able of doing the same thing. The hostility vs. USA in Middle East is a problem for the deployement of USA foreign policy in the area but is not in itself a "sine qua non" for 9/11. Terrorist organisations do not need people support to live as the countryside guerrillas do.--Igor21 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Accounted For"

I believe that the phrase "about 2,973 people are accounted for" is unclear. The 2,973 are, I believe, dead for whom at least some remains have been identified. Would "about 2,973 dead have been accounted for" be more or less useful? Gruber76 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucky # 7 (take #973)

There are two notable hypothesis about the fall of building 7. Neither is currently provable. I'd like to hear some opinions, imo we should recognize both hypothesis, for I see no reason to implement NIST and neglect the other one.

Anyway, this sentence:

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires.[10][11] Numerous adjacent buildings to the complex also had substantial damage and fires and had to be demolished."

Won't suffice. It is written as (or at least it implies) some sort of proof. NIST clearly stated that it's a working hypothesis, not a proof of any kind. Let's be factually accurate about these things. Or is that too much to ask (in one day)? Lovelight 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reaosn to remove what should be common knowledge.--MONGO 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to remove anything, we need to add the other hypothesis and reformulate the wording so it wouldn’t be misleading - as it is now. Lovelight 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. --Golbez 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. Lovelight 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. --Golbez 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) .od ew seY

& I'm open for suggestions since if I'm about to reformulate it, it will say something like: "The building fell in manner which is consistent with controlled demolition hypothesis."; however some may prefer to state that "the collapse of WTC 7 is still to be (un)explained." or something along those lines (I'm ok with most options as long as they imply word hypothesis). Anyway, current state of that sentence simply won't suffice; it cannot be more misleading and inaccurate than it is, there is a much better conclusion in the investigation>collapse of the towers section, we should be consistent… Peter, I'm certain you are aware of the flaw. Care to fix it? Lovelight 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)